Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

That's a great point, John. Ego is undoubtedly a part of our profession/hobby. I have learned the hard way that I don't have to have everything, and I have reached a point where I don't add anything to my kit without subtracting something. I'm in the process of selling one of my cheapest pieces (85mm f/1. and am replacing it in my bag with the new 35mm f/2 IS. I have a great zoom covering the focal length (70-300L), and I also have the 100L and the 135L. I decided that I don't really need the 85mm, and a friend is very happily buying it off me.

P.S. I've also learned that there are some very good lenses out there that don't have a red ring on them. I've actually replaced two red rings with other branded lenses.

Good points, true.

However, it isn't necessarily all about ego. I spent over ten grand on a lens this year, a $12,800 lens to be exact. While I believe there may be a very few people who have egos so large that they might actually drop that kind of money on a lens "just to have it so they can brag it"...I think such individuals are VERY, VERY few and far between.

I bought the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens because I needed it. I'd been shooting with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for a while. The 100-400 is an excellent lens, it produces wonderful shots that can be very sharp. Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400. That said, it wasn't letting me realize the kind of results I really wanted. A 71mm entrance pupil at 400mm just wasn't large enough to produce the kind of soft, creamy boke that I felt was necessary for my work. Not only that, the lens only performed ideally when stopped down to f/7.1...anything wider and the image softened, visibly (even with AFMA and a trip to Canon for calibration.)

The 600/4 L lens has a 150mm entrance pupil, which does WONDERS for background boke. The lens is razor sharp wide open, so I can get more light and use lower ISO settings. Combined with a TC, it gets me 840mm of significantly greater reach (subject size in the frame is relative to the ratio of focal lengths squared...(840/400)^2...my subjects increased in the frame by a factor of 4.4x!) Overall, between brighter and larger subjects with blurrier backgrounds, I have more detailed photos with more isolated birds and wildlife. I'm able to start realizing the kind of results in my work that I have worked for for years.

I currently own a 7D. The 7D is a great camera. I got it for an incredible deal ($1200 in 2011!) It has a fast frame rate, and does reasonably well at high ISO. However, similar to my 100-400mm lens, it has become the primary limiting factor. It does not do all that well, relatively speaking, at any ISO above 1600. Even ISO 1600 is lacking by todays standards, and can be too noisy in sunrise or sunset light (even with an f/4 lens). The AF system, while certainly better than the 9pt systems I started out with, has it's issues (namely, the constant inter-frame jitter that results in some frames being tack sharp and others being just the smallest degree too much out of focus that they can't be keepers.)

My only two options, given the expenditure of thousands of dollars on the 600mm lens, are the 1D X and 5D III. The 1D X would certainly be my ideal choice...but the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. It's AF system is blazing fast and extremely consistent compared to the 7D, and it supports f/8 AF, meaning I don't necessarily have to give up my reach (1200mm f/8 vs. an effective 1344 f/5.6...given equivalence, the f/8 on a FF sensor is actually just as good, from a total light gathering standpoint, as f/5.6 on APS-C). If I had the money, I'd buy the 1D X. It has absolutely amazing quality at unheard of ISO settings, and at every ISO setting from 400 up, it performs visibly better than any other camera I know of, including the 6D. Since I cannot afford the 1D X, the 5D III is my choice.

My desire to own the 5D III and 600mm f/4 L II lens has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with achieving my goals in my work. I am fairly humble about my work as well...personally, I am never quite satisfied with it...there is ALWAYS something I can do better, something I can improve. I hope someday I'll have developed the skill to achieve exactly what I want when I point my lens and press the shutter button, but I know quite thouroughly that day hasn't arrived yet, and won't arrive for some time still.

@John, I applaud your decision to step down to the 6D. For your needs and goals, it sounded like the ideal decision. It got rid of a camera you were rarely using, replaced it with a camera you use more, allowed you to continue to gain value from your collection of EF lenses, and gave you some extra funds to put towards a future camera that you will use even more. I can't think of a better reason to make the decision you did.

That said, @TWI, not everyone who uses or wants something better than the 6D is only out for an ego trip. There are legitimate reasons to NEED the 5D III, to even NEED something much better than the 5D III. Sometimes debating the minutia of technical details helps people figure out what they truly need, and make the appropriate decisions to buy the gear that best fits their goals. I need the 1D X for my birds and wildlife photography, and I'll "settle" for the 5D III. For my astrophotography, the 6D's lower high ISO noise levels actually make it the better camera, and a lens like the new Samyang 10mm f/2.8 manual focus lens would be ideal.

Different needs demand different things. It's ok if all you need is a 6D. I think where the debate enters in is when you get people saying the 6D is a superior camera to the 5D III, simply because it has a "better" sensor. While it may have some superior attributes, it is by no means a superior camera.

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

+1...the 6D is definitely not a "better camera" than the 5D3, although no doubt Jrista didn't mean to imply that's what you were meaning. We all know the 5D3 has all the bells and whistles, it's the more advanced camera...and it's meant to be. In my opinion (and for my needs) it will be more interesting to see what the future holds for the next version, and whatever else Canon have up their sleeves...rather than buy the 5D3 now.

I use to feel this way, too. "Man, this camera has all these cool gadgets. Certainly it must be the better camera?" The 5D III I had and my 7D (which I still have) blow away the 6D in features save for the wifi and GPS (which are sort of cool I have to admit).

But in the end, my 6D produces cleaner, sharper images than either. And honestly, that's the ultimate criteria for deciding which camera is better.

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. )

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. )

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.

hello both (and to the rest of the community).I would like to take advantage of your experience regarding a 6D related decision I have to make (in order to avoid opening a new thread)UP to now I have 5D2 and 5D3. I may have the opportunity to get a cheap 6D (I will have it on my hands in a few months actually but the decision has to be mad this ... cyber week!)I plan to put 5D2 on sale. Being an amateur I can afford to have one body (my 5D3) for a few months.

Now I am a little sentimental in letting my 5D2 go and at the same time I am a little put off but the different (and worse in my opinion) 6D layout.

But a second 5D3 would cost 1000 euros more!

I use my 5D2 mostly for landscape work and my 5D3 mostly for portraits (where the AF points of 5D3 come very handy) and astrophotography. But when I need all of the above (like 2 weeks ago) it's 5D3 of course.

To sum up I consider 3 options:1. Keep them as is (5D3,5D2) (Simplest I do nothing, this is also the sentimental choice)2. Get 6D and sell 5D2.3. Get a second 5D3.

I believe the best solution (if price stays the same for tomorrow) is number 2 but I am a little sentimental regarding my 5D2 so solution 1 seems second best.

Thanks for your time and I hope this post is not considered off topic.

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. )

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.

hello both (and to the rest of the community).I would like to take advantage of your experience regarding a 6D related decision I have to make (in order to avoid opening a new thread)UP to now I have 5D2 and 5D3. I may have the opportunity to get a cheap 6D (I will have it on my hands in a few months actually but the decision has to be mad this ... cyber week!)I plan to put 5D2 on sale. Being an amateur I can afford to have one body (my 5D3) for a few months.

Now I am a little sentimental in letting my 5D2 go and at the same time I am a little put off but the different (and worse in my opinion) 6D layout.

But a second 5D3 would cost 1000 euros more!

I use my 5D2 mostly for landscape work and my 5D3 mostly for portraits (where the AF points of 5D3 come very handy) and astrophotography. But when I need all of the above (like 2 weeks ago) it's 5D3 of course.

To sum up I consider 3 options:1. Keep them as is (5D3,5D2) (Simplest I do nothing, this is also the sentimental choice)2. Get 6D and sell 5D2.3. Get a second 5D3.

I believe the best solution (if price stays the same for tomorrow) is number 2 but I am a little sentimental regarding my 5D2 so solution 1 seems second best.

Thanks for your time and I hope this post is not considered off topic.

Given that you have some trepidation about spending that extra 1000 euro, and the fact that you do astrophotography, I'd get the 6D. For both landscapes and astro, the 6D is the better performer. It has lower read noise at ISO 100 ('scapes), and cleaner and slightly lower noise overall at high ISO (astro). The 6D is probably the best camera for astrophotography until you jump into dedicated (and even actively cooled) monochrome CCD cameras, per-frame color/Halpha filtration, etc.

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. )

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.

hello both (and to the rest of the community).I would like to take advantage of your experience regarding a 6D related decision I have to make (in order to avoid opening a new thread)UP to now I have 5D2 and 5D3. I may have the opportunity to get a cheap 6D (I will have it on my hands in a few months actually but the decision has to be mad this ... cyber week!)I plan to put 5D2 on sale. Being an amateur I can afford to have one body (my 5D3) for a few months.

Now I am a little sentimental in letting my 5D2 go and at the same time I am a little put off but the different (and worse in my opinion) 6D layout.

But a second 5D3 would cost 1000 euros more!

I use my 5D2 mostly for landscape work and my 5D3 mostly for portraits (where the AF points of 5D3 come very handy) and astrophotography. But when I need all of the above (like 2 weeks ago) it's 5D3 of course.

To sum up I consider 3 options:1. Keep them as is (5D3,5D2) (Simplest I do nothing, this is also the sentimental choice)2. Get 6D and sell 5D2.3. Get a second 5D3.

I believe the best solution (if price stays the same for tomorrow) is number 2 but I am a little sentimental regarding my 5D2 so solution 1 seems second best.

Thanks for your time and I hope this post is not considered off topic.

Given that you have some trepidation about spending that extra 1000 euro, and the fact that you do astrophotography, I'd get the 6D. For both landscapes and astro, the 6D is the better performer. It has lower read noise at ISO 100 ('scapes), and cleaner and slightly lower noise overall at high ISO (astro). The 6D is probably the best camera for astrophotography until you jump into dedicated (and even actively cooled) monochrome CCD cameras, per-frame color/Halpha filtration, etc.

So, I'd concurr...#2.

Thank's. Actually I tend to prefer landscape astrophotography. In this case I cannot use a tracking device so it's high or very high ISO => 6D although my 5D3 was very good at it (ISO 10000). In addition the fact that 6D is cheaper may help to:1. Decide to send it for modification (make it Ha sensitive).2. Put Magic Lantern. (ML for now cannot be uninstalled from 5D3 so another point for 6D).

I think you may have missed my point. I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from. I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly. I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII. I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. )

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.

hello both (and to the rest of the community).I would like to take advantage of your experience regarding a 6D related decision I have to make (in order to avoid opening a new thread)UP to now I have 5D2 and 5D3. I may have the opportunity to get a cheap 6D (I will have it on my hands in a few months actually but the decision has to be mad this ... cyber week!)I plan to put 5D2 on sale. Being an amateur I can afford to have one body (my 5D3) for a few months.

Now I am a little sentimental in letting my 5D2 go and at the same time I am a little put off but the different (and worse in my opinion) 6D layout.

But a second 5D3 would cost 1000 euros more!

I use my 5D2 mostly for landscape work and my 5D3 mostly for portraits (where the AF points of 5D3 come very handy) and astrophotography. But when I need all of the above (like 2 weeks ago) it's 5D3 of course.

To sum up I consider 3 options:1. Keep them as is (5D3,5D2) (Simplest I do nothing, this is also the sentimental choice)2. Get 6D and sell 5D2.3. Get a second 5D3.

I believe the best solution (if price stays the same for tomorrow) is number 2 but I am a little sentimental regarding my 5D2 so solution 1 seems second best.

Thanks for your time and I hope this post is not considered off topic.

Given that you have some trepidation about spending that extra 1000 euro, and the fact that you do astrophotography, I'd get the 6D. For both landscapes and astro, the 6D is the better performer. It has lower read noise at ISO 100 ('scapes), and cleaner and slightly lower noise overall at high ISO (astro). The 6D is probably the best camera for astrophotography until you jump into dedicated (and even actively cooled) monochrome CCD cameras, per-frame color/Halpha filtration, etc.

So, I'd concurr...#2.

Thank's. Actually I tend to prefer landscape astrophotography. In this case I cannot use a tracking device so it's high or very high ISO => 6D although my 5D3 was very good at it (ISO 10000). In addition the fact that 6D is cheaper may help to:1. Decide to send it for modification (make it Ha sensitive).2. Put Magic Lantern. (ML for now cannot be uninstalled from 5D3 so another point for 6D).

You could use a tracking device if you combined a stationary ground shot with a tracked sky shot. Of course it's more trouble and more editing, and mounting and dismounting the camera (unless you used two cameras). Interesting about ML not being able to be uninstalled on the 5D3...

First paid outing with the 6D. Brought the x100s along to test the waters. Unfortunately, trying to have a yongnuo 622 radio trigger on both bodies on the same frequency going to the same flash did not work so the Fuji got no prime time usage.

I'm positive this will be solved - actually the uninstallation (i.e. removal of the in-camera boot flag) in 99% likelihood works the same as on every other camera like the 6d, it's just that the 5d3 is the most expensive one and no one wanted to try it yet.

I'm positive this will be solved - actually the uninstallation (i.e. removal of the in-camera boot flag) in 99% likelihood works the same as on every other camera like the 6d, it's just that the 5d3 is the most expensive one and no one wanted to try it yet.

Alex has said that it cannot be done in a 100% safe way. I too truly hope that it will be solved (and that ML would be updated to support the 1.2.3 firmware release).

I'm positive this will be solved - actually the uninstallation (i.e. removal of the in-camera boot flag) in 99% likelihood works the same as on every other camera like the 6d, it's just that the 5d3 is the most expensive one and no one wanted to try it yet.

Alex has said that it cannot be done in a 100% safe way. I too truly hope that it will be solved (and that ML would be updated to support the 1.2.3 firmware release).

First paid outing with the 6D. Brought the x100s along to test the waters. Unfortunately, trying to have a yongnuo 622 radio trigger on both bodies on the same frequency going to the same flash did not work so the Fuji got no prime time usage.

You got paid to shoot the 991 Turbo? How did you get that gig? Life's not fair!!

First paid outing with the 6D. Brought the x100s along to test the waters. Unfortunately, trying to have a yongnuo 622 radio trigger on both bodies on the same frequency going to the same flash did not work so the Fuji got no prime time usage.

You got paid to shoot the 991 Turbo? How did you get that gig? Life's not fair!!

LOL. I was referred for a previous red carpet event at that dealership for the unveiling of the new Panamera a couple months back. They liked my work enough that they asked me back for this one. Primary goal of the shoot was more for the red carpet and festivities. Just didn't want to post any of the people shots since they hadn't posted any themselves yet. The 911 Turbo S is a thing of beauty. But I only took a handful of car shots.

You aren't the first person to tell me that "life's not fair." LOL. Life works in odd ways cause the random gigs come easier now that I don't need the money (and am not seeking them out). Back in my early 20's (pre-career), I couldn't land a decent gig to save my life when I was searching all the time.

Anyhow, the 6D performed well enough. I did miss the extra focus points when I was on the red carpet since I was basically stationary as the attendees passed by the backdrop. Composing was a pain compared to my last shoot there which was when I still had the 5D3. There were varying numbers in arriving groups and no one seemed to want to stand in the same place relative to the backdrop. I found that I had to crop a lot in post as a result. Regardless, I got the job done and everyone was happy.

Love the fact that the dSLR's these days are so awesome (And that even entry level and pro-sumer level cameras perform so well) that people can spend page after page debating which one is a split hair better.

First paid outing with the 6D. Brought the x100s along to test the waters. Unfortunately, trying to have a yongnuo 622 radio trigger on both bodies on the same frequency going to the same flash did not work so the Fuji got no prime time usage.

You got paid to shoot the 991 Turbo? How did you get that gig? Life's not fair!!

LOL. I was referred for a previous red carpet event at that dealership for the unveiling of the new Panamera a couple months back. They liked my work enough that they asked me back for this one. Primary goal of the shoot was more for the red carpet and festivities. Just didn't want to post any of the people shots since they hadn't posted any themselves yet. The 911 Turbo S is a thing of beauty. But I only took a handful of car shots.

You aren't the first person to tell me that "life's not fair." LOL. Life works in odd ways cause the random gigs come easier now that I don't need the money (and am not seeking them out). Back in my early 20's (pre-career), I couldn't land a decent gig to save my life when I was searching all the time.

Anyhow, the 6D performed well enough. I did miss the extra focus points when I was on the red carpet since I was basically stationary as the attendees passed by the backdrop. Composing was a pain compared to my last shoot there which was when I still had the 5D3. There were varying numbers in arriving groups and no one seemed to want to stand in the same place relative to the backdrop. I found that I had to crop a lot in post as a result. Regardless, I got the job done and everyone was happy.

Glad to hear it was a success for you. And in case you are thinking I am in my 20's...well thanks, I think. I'm not! I hope they paid you a ton of money, because they are absolutely raking it in!! You should have the terms of your photography as follows: For just the basic shots, that's your flat rate. But if they actually want the shots, that's a pricey option. If they actually want to be allowed to view those shots whenever they want...well that's the "S" option, and it costs triple...hahaha.

Yea I was just reading in "Car" about the new Turbo S...they kind of slammed it while also complimenting it. Compared it to what else, the Nissan GTR, hahaha. Basically the Turbo S is over-refined, moreso than the previous 997 Turbo S. No surprise there...the one to get is still the GT3. Perhaps "the last gunfighter"...before they all become solar powered bicycles!

One thing Porsche learned from the last Turbo rollout though, was to do the opposite, and introduce the S model first, then the standard Turbo model later. That better suits the type of buyer who buys them (as in somebody who only wants the bragging rights and rarely dips into the power...a lawyer, a doctor...an overpaid sports player or actor...etc.) From what the article said, the 997 Turbo early adopters resented that the S model came out 6 months later...apparently there was not firm word that it would appear in the US market, or something (I think that was 2009 or 2010).

Another thing I read in that mag, was how you can say goodbye to the flat six in the Boxster and Cayman. They're going to smaller turbo 4 cylinders to cut CO2 emissions. Don't you love environmentalism?